studiot

Not aligns no. Perhaps if I had said remember the fate of the steady state theory

What about declining fertility rates? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46118103

So why did you waste your time and mine with this reply, instead of answering the very simple GCSE questions for 15/16 year olds I asked? Was it you complained of a wind up?

Why waste swansont's time when you have refused to acknowledge the standard Physics expalantion I wrote out for you, complete with calculations? I further state categorically that the atmosphere's pressure on the surface of the Earth can be directly linked to the weight of the air molecules and would be zero if they had no weight. What a pity you don't want to know. https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=xwDmW77IEsuWgAaS75PAAg&q=kinks+tired+of+waiting+youtube&oq=kinks+tired+of+waiting&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l4j0i22i30k1l6.1568.6112.0.8102.22.21.0.1.1.0.224.2536.0j16j2.18.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.19.2554...0i131k1.0.ztboyc68TiQ

I don't see how you expect to learn anything if you refuse to engage in discussion. Post reported. To add to the questions you refuse to answer. 1) What stops the atmosphere evaporating off into space? 2) What is weight? 3) How does the impact of molecule on molecule affect the surface of the Earth?

Remember the 'steady state theory' of Bondi, Gold and Hoyle? It relied on 'continuous creation' for a supply of matter to keep the density up in the expanding universe.

Enough hand waving. We need some mathematics. There is a connection between the kinetic theory and the fluid mechanics. I have very quickly scribbled out a simple mathematical derivation of this connection in the attachments.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

Indeed we are agreed that this is the equation in Einstein's paper you are referring to. This is the first time you have agreed this so this is progress. However, going back to the A(stationary) and B (moving systems) systems - or the K and k systems (Einstein) t is the time measured on a clcok in the A system tau is the time measured in the B system The transformation is the connection between t and tau; that is tau as a function of t Therefore the transformation gives the time as viewed in the stationary system. But the definition of proper time is the time as viewed in the moving system. If you weren't so determined to bulldoze this discussion, you would be in danger of learning something.

The force exerted on the ground by a pile of bricks of standing area 1 square metre is equal to the weight of the bricks. The pressure is the weight divided by that area. Are you saying that this does not apply to a column of air standing on the gorund?

1) There is no problem to solve, except perhaps your understanding of what is going on. 2) I posted the part of Einstein's original paper where he states the equation you refer to above. Did you read it? Because if you had read it you would surely have the following where he explains what his equation is calculating. Note also that he clearly states the clock is in the moving system. Here is a definition of proper time So very very clearly, Einstein was not talking about proper time (although this term was not introduced till later and I think not by him) This is why I keep asking if you are applying your analysis to the correct bodies. Please note that the example from Turner I quoted included a diagram and some numbered equations, as well as an explanation of the meaning of the symbols in those equations. Einstein also did this in his paper. I see that you wish to teach Mathematics and I recommend you adopt this convention. It not only helps one organise one's own thought it help communication with your students and, if you make then do it, helps you unravel what they are doing or think they are doing. In relation to this I see you mixed up the figures and equations in my last post.

Good to mention Aleph0 here. You make your point well +1

Yes one simple model involves the use of the weight of a fluid column. So What? One simple model of the Earth, universally used in navigation and cartography, invoves the use of a sphere. Neither models are perfect and for the atmosphere that model is particularly defective and difficult to work with. The weight of a fluid column model is much more suited to incompressible fluids like water and shorter columns. More sophisticated models acknowlege that the particles of the fluid have mass and momentum. And, as you (nearly) say, the static pressure is the result of molecular collisions with the fluid boundaries. But even these are not perfect.

But it doesn't But it doesn't, even in Maths. Look at a binary truth table for addition. 1 + 1 = 0

I have some more (hopefully helpful) thoughts about this post but meanwhile can you say what is in conflict with this presentation of a light clock? No bastard triangles are needed. I did ask if you are applying your analysis to the wrong thing and I ask again as you did not answer. The point is that we should be comparing the second (unit of time) as measured by each observer, as each will observe a different number of units, but it is the relative length of those units that is being transformed (dilated). So to A, B's units will appear dilated (longer) so the square root factor being less than 1 is on the bottom of the fraction in the transformation from his units to B's. This is the usual formula. However when A considers the transformation from B's units to his the square root factor will appear on the top (Einsteins formula) as he need to shorten B's apparently longer units to match his own.

Yes, in astronomy they also use relative brightness for known stars.

Entropy is a concept. Thermodynamics is a theory Probability is a concept. The theory of probability distributions is - guess what? a theory. A (valence) 'hole' is a concept in semiconductor theory. The theory of transistor action is a theory using the concept of holes.

Well I have just logged in and I see that you posted your shouted question less than half an hour ago, but can't be bothered to wait for an answer. You need to tell us more about the situation to get a proper answer. What sort of wave would be a good start? If both you and the source of the waves are on the surface of the Earth, two directions plus the distance apart of the receiving stations will do. If the source is up in the air then a third measurement is required. With certain waves it is possible to measure distance from a single source, to a single receiver, which is why we need to know more.

I have a passing knowledge of organic chemistry so I know what a rearrangement reaction is in general terms. I know the detail of some rearrangement reactions such as the allylic rearrangement. But I am confident that there are many, many more that I do not know the details of. Looking in the index to my text I see it refers to the favorski rearrangement. I therefore have enough confidence to believe that there is a reaction called favorski, but I know that I do not know what it is or what it does. How does that play with you binary definition?

Minkowski is neither the simplest nor the most modern or most integrated with modern mathematics. The modern version uses vector spaces and an alternative inner product to the pythagorean one of Minkowski, which require an imaginary coordinate axis generated by incorporating the square root of minus 1 in the definition. Where did I get the 2 from? Well since you introduced light clocks I assumed you would understand that light clocks work by virtue of a double journey (to a mirror and back), hence the 2. And yes the 2l cancels. But I am still at a loss to understand where you see a difficulty. Here is what Einstein actually wrote in his paper (translated) where he develops the equation you refer to. Are you sure you are applying it to the correct quantity?

Is there a single point to this or is they binary?

I can't help you with MAtLab, perhaps someone else here can do that. For the mechanics part your question asks about forces as well as velocities and accelerations. Strictly speaking kinematics refers only to the velocities, times, distances and accelerations, without consideration of the forces and energies to achieve them. The subject including those is called dynamics. Either way you need to establish a system of simultaneous equations to find what you need. These come from the laws of kinematics and or dynamics and are called the constitutive relations. By themselves there will be more unknowns that equations. So you then have to look elsewhere to obtain more equations to solve the system. These come from the geometrical constraints on the system (for instance the distance AB is fixed, although B moves about) and are called the constraint equations or the equations of compatibility. You can google both these terms, I'm sure from the complexity of your question you will need to know about them in your studies. Does this help?

Asking questions like this is a good way to start. I have added some numbering to help refer to them. First and foremost you need to know that electromagnets are magnetic because of the electric current and not because of any material. The larger the current the stronger the magnetic field. (This is not all but it is a start). Therefore to answer (1) the best material would be to make the wires from the best conductors of electricity, silver or gold or copper. (2) The material (air) is already defined in an air cored device. (3) I don't follow what you are trying to do here, it sound complicated enough to come back to when you have got hold of some more basics. (4) The purpose of any core is to concentrate the magnetic field withing the electromagentic windings. Without a core (air cored) the field would spread out widely beyond the windings and that part would be useless/lost. Further certain materials - soft iron , (not steel) have a high what is known as susceptibility which allows the core material to boost or reinforce the electromagnetically generated field. Let us know how you get on with these comments so we can make more progress.

Try this experiment. Take a sheet of paper and place it flat on the desk. Place two fingers of one hand close together near one corner and twist the paper so it rotates on the desk. Which part of the paper stays still and which part moves the most? Now remove the first hand and place two fingers of the other hand near the corner diagonally opposite the first one. Rotate again in the same sense. Again note which part of the paper moves and which remains still. Now try both hands at once. What happens to the sheet of paper?

So why didn't you think this through in the first place? There is an arrangement like you are trying to describe, used in some helicopters with contra rotating main rotors to balance the spin torque and avoid the need for tail rotors. I suggest you look it up.